Crompton Stresses Importance of Words and Trust in Run for Full Term on Commonwealth Court

On Nov. 2, Pennsylvanians are set to decide which candidates will join the ranks of the state Commonwealth Court. To get a better understanding of each candidate’s background and judicial philosophy, The Legal has asked each to respond to a questionnaire touching on a variety of topics important to the legal community.

Responses to the questionnaires are set to be published in the weeks leading up to the general election. The third installment comes from Drew Crompton, who is running to secure a full term on the Commonwealth Court. He was nominated to an interim term on the court by Gov. Tom Wolf, a Democrat, and confirmed by Senate vote in 2019. Crompton is a Republican whose previous roles include general counsel to the Senate Republicans and chief-of-staff for Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati, according to his campaign biography.

The following has been lightly edited for style.

The Legal: How would you describe your judicial philosophy?

Crompton: Words matter. As a sitting judge on the Commonwealth Court, I am often called to interpret words. I consider myself a strict constructionist. Laws and regulations should be interpreted as written. Precedent should also be adhered to in order so that there is consistency in the law. I don’t editorialize in my opinions since it is often considered dicta, which may have a legal legacy of confusion.

The Legal: What two decisions or cases are you most proud of, and why? Conversely, what two opinions or cases would you like to take back or revise if you could, and why?

Crompton: (a) I was recently affirmed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Johnstown v. WCAB (255 A.3d 214), which cemented the pathway for firefighters to receive workers’ compensation who develop cancer due to their firefighting activities.

(b) I also wrote an en banc opinion addressing the Keystone Opportunity Zone legislation for properties located in Philadelphia. My unanimous decision was an important statutory construction case and was also affirmed by Pennsylvania Supreme Court (442 MD 2019).

(c) Recently the Commonwealth Court reconsidered an opinion I drafted concerning the Department of Revenue and the Office of Open Records. It is a difficult issue with an odd set of facts, but I supported the reconsideration because in hindsight I believed the case needed further review.

(d) There have been a few cases over the past 18 months that I have penned that I have not enjoyed writing, but that is the responsibility of every independent judge to be willing to make decisions that aren’t pleasant but in which the law requires.

The Legal: In your view, what makes you the best candidate for the role?

Crompton: As a sitting Commonwealth Court judge for the past two years, I have written over 125 opinions that are available to the public. The type of judge I have been and will be is already known. My opinions are well researched, balanced and thoughtful. Further, prior to being a judge, I have had extensive experience in the Legislative and Executive Branches of government. Why is this important? The Commonwealth Court is the court that ensures state and local government is following the law. My extensive background in drafting legislation and regulations allows me to ensure that the government is staying in its proper lane.

The Legal: What is the greatest threat to the practice of law, or problem the profession faces?

Crompton: Too many people are losing faith in the Judiciary. Judges must make the right decisions for the right articulated reasons. I have worked hard to be transparent in my service as a judge. I said at my confirmation hearing in the Senate that I would make a clean break with my service in the Senate, and I have done just that. Judges must make decisions on the law regardless of who the litigants are. Partisan judges will do nothing but further the perception that individuals are not getting the justice that is deserved. I have received many endorsements over the past few months, and most have noted that they believe me to be a truly independent judge. Without this, the entire legal profession suffers.

The Legal: What does your party membership say about you and your legal outlook?

Crompton: When I was confirmed for the Commonwealth Court, I received affirmative votes by Republican and Democratic members of the Senate. I am a Republican, and I have some personal philosophical views, but they do not impact my role as a judge. I have ruled for and against Republicans and Democrats over the past two years. Party affiliation cannot impact judicial decision-making. Once again, reviewing my past opinions will reinforce that I have been a judge right down the middle.

The Legal: Do you think courts in Pennsylvania have a perception problem when it comes to appearing partisan? If so, what would you do to combat this?

Crompton: I do. Too often we assign labels to judges. He is a liberal judge or she is a conservative, for example. Some of this is unavoidable since in Pennsylvania we elect our judges. When I worked in the Senate, we asked a “Republican” judge to swear in new Republican members and the Democrats did the same for their team. This practice always irked me because it simply plays into the “Us vs. Them” mentality. This problem is not easily solved. However, each judge must answer to himself or herself that he or she is making the correct decision regardless of party affiliation and then follow up with a thoughtfully written opinion on the law. In the end, this is the best each of us can do.

The Legal: Did Joe Biden, Josh Shapiro, Stacy Garrity and Tim DeFoor win free, fair and above-board elections in 2020, or do you think the contests were significantly impacted by fraud?

Crompton: As a sitting judge, I cannot publicly comment on case material that may come before me in the future.

The Legal: What factors matter in deciding when recusal is necessary, and would you recuse yourself if a campaign contributor were involved in litigation as a party or attorney before you?

Crompton: I have faced a few limited issues of recusal over the past two years, some sua sponte and a couple recusal motions have been filed. Sometimes the recusal issue is black and white—such as when my sister-in-law used to sit on the gaming board and therefore I did not participate in these issues. Other recusal issues have been more difficult to wrestle with, but I have always chosen to recuse when there could be a reasonable perception of bias.

Campaign contributions are not a new issue for elected judges but it is an important one. For contributions of a limited amount, I will likely put the parties on notice through an order to inform the litigants and allow a response from either side. High contributions will likely require a recusal. If I am successful on Nov. 2, I will ensure that my policy is known so the parties are not blindsided. However, parties are obviously always free to raise this issue and I welcome any good faith recusal motion to ensure that litigants believe that they are being fairly heard.

The Legal: How important is consensus—particularly unanimous consensus—in appellate court opinions and are there limits when a judge should only concur, or should they do it any time they feel like it?

Crompton: Every case and matter is different. I have filed a limited number of dissents over the last two years. There have been times when I simply disagree with the majority and believed I should justify my dissent with a proper articulation. There is an excellent atmosphere of collegiality and respect among the judges on the Commonwealth Court. Unanimity often comes because of the subject matter. The facts of the case and our prior precedent frequently lead to one conclusion. But disagreement among judges is healthy when handled in an appropriate manner.

The Legal: Who are your role models and mentors?

Crompton: Justice Tom Saylor. He is a brilliant man, respected by all, and rightfully dodged the political limelight. His writings always made you ponder the law and he believed rigorously in quality not the quantity of words. Who would not want to attempt to emulate him?

Steve MacNett was a mentor of mine in the Senate. Also brilliant, however never ceased to show a wonderful amount of humanity in his daily life.

I also like to think that I have taken to heart many life lessons from a diverse group of others.

The Legal: In light of the recent constitutional amendments approved by voters, what is the courts’ role in defining or limiting the emergency powers of the governor and General Assembly?

Crompton: This issue may also be litigated before the Commonwealth Court and therefore will choose not to answer under the Judicial Canons.